Frank commentary from an unretired call girl

My Body, My Choice

No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. – Margaret Sanger

The lie at the heart of neofeminism is perfectly illustrated by the way in which it misuses the slogan which forms the title of today’s column. For the record, I support a woman’s free and unfettered right to an abortion in the first trimester; after that the nervous system of the baby (the medical term “fetus”, though technically correct, is too often used to obscure the truth by dehumanizing the subject of the discussion) begins to develop to a high enough degree for it to be considered human, and therefore entitled to the same protections as severely retarded children who are dependent on life support. Twelve weeks is plenty of time to decide whether one wants an abortion or not, and barring late-term developments which endanger the mother it is thus a reasonable compromise between her rights and those of the unborn child. To restrict abortion further is to reduce women to state-owned incubators for future taxpayers, and to allow it without any restrictions at all is to establish the dangerous legal precedent that some humans can be legally declared disposable. I am not dogmatic about the date (a doctor might be able to convince me that, say, the 16th week is a better dividing line), nor am I declaring this so as to open the topic for debate; in fact, I specifically ask that none of my readers reply on the subject because A) this is not an appropriate venue for it; and B) Americans are as a group completely irrational about it and prefer to insist on either total illegality under any circumstance or total legality up until the moment labor starts. The only reason I mention it at all is because I don’t want either anti-choice fanatics or anti-life fanatics claiming me as one of their own on the basis of selective interpretation of any statements I might make in today’s column.

OK, now that’s out of the way I must point out that though the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision established that a woman’s right to privacy includes her right to own and control her own body, the broader implications of the decision have been completely ignored in favor of a psychotic interpretation that a woman’s right to control her own sexuality does not include the right to have sex with whoever she chooses on whatever terms she chooses, yet does give her certain power over the persons of others! In many (in some cases most or all) of the United States a woman is not legally permitted to consent to certain forms of sex (prostitution, BDSM, oral sex, etc) no matter how old she is, and in some states “mandatory prosecution laws” deny a woman the right to choose whether to press “domestic violence” charges on her husband or boyfriend, thus granting outsiders the power to judge her relationships and deny her access to her chosen partner through his incarceration. Conversely, in some parts of the country a woman has the right to kill a viable baby (22 weeks or more) or to force a man to pay her substantial sums of money for two decades through theft of his genetic material (whether by lying about birth control or by the turkey-baster method). The modern American woman is like a chained princess, able to control other’s bodies but not her own.

The reason for this profoundly asinine interpretation of a simple legal principle (the right of every citizen to be free from government interference in his or her private life) is, in a word, neofeminism. After the neofeminists seized control of second-wave feminism in the late ‘70s, the “feminist” establishment became little more than a front for a determined campaign to castrate and subjugate men and eliminate traditional heterosexual relationships. One must presume that even the most fanatical neofeminists recognize the need for reproduction, but they want to be sure that it is absolutely, completely and totally under neofeminist control and that any hint of pleasure or self-determination for men is removed from the equation. Rabid neofeminists hate men exactly as misogynistic religious fundamentalists hate women; they accept them as a necessary evil but demand they be totally dominated by the state and forced to use their bodies only to serve women’s needs. The neofeminist plan for men is like the Islamic fundamentalist plan for women: the subjugated gender is vilified as inferior, treacherous and morally corrupt and is condemned to a life of unending toil, servitude and sexual submission with even the most minor transgressions subject to incredibly harsh penalties, all for the “good of society.” And because of this, neofeminists oppose any and all forms of sexuality which allow a man to achieve gratification at a fair price such as porn, prostitution and equal marital relationships.

Given this catechism of hate, it should be obvious why the neofeminists support unlimited abortion rights and the principle of “rights without responsibilities for the woman, responsibilities without rights for the man” in anything to do with children, yet oppose a woman’s right to earn her living by pleasing men in any way or to consent to a relationship in which the man seems to have the upper hand. To the neofeminist mind, the claim of “equal rights for women” is nothing but an excuse for the suppression of men and heterosexuality. Equal rights entail equal responsibilities, and full social participation requires personal autonomy and the right to self-determination, yet the neofeminists consistently support legislation which reduces women to legally incompetent wards of the state. Mandatory domestic violence prosecution, current paternity law and the “Nordic Model” of prostitution law all presume that adult women exist in a state of perpetual childhood in which we are neither competent to make our own decisions regarding sexual relations with men, nor liable for the consequences arising from our actions.

As I discussed in my column on modern marriage, it is a common misconception that the gender of those in power in a modern government has any real effect on its actions. As I said in that column, “Institutions are inherently sexless; they can be made up of men, women, machines or any combination thereof without making any difference in their motivations or behavior. All organizations, no matter what their constituency, wish to survive and grow, and will obtain that end by any means necessary; since the most powerful social forces emanate from women it is women who must be controlled in order to control society, even if those in power are mostly female.” Because of their particular psychological dysfunction the neofeminists have an emotional need to control men, but that does not free them from the practical need to control women in order to control society. And so they mouth platitudes about a “woman’s right to choose” while vehemently opposing it in actuality.

But now we’re seeing a new kind of feminist; most third-wave feminists enjoy being women, like men, enjoy sex and have internalized “equality” rhetoric to the point where they don’t want men to be treated unfairly any more than they want women to be. They accept sex work as a valid choice, support a woman’s right to engage in BDSM and some have even spoken out against the way modern law treats men. For the present, the neofeminists still dominate the establishment and still control the majority of grant money and legal discourse involving women, but that can’t last forever; the nasty old bitches who have been flapping around since the ‘70s like bloated vampire bats are starting to die off, and despite their efforts to indoctrinate a new generation of disciples their numbers are decreasing and their rhetoric seems more and more strident and disgusting to most young women. So it’s only a matter of time before most of the feminists who have the ears of legislators will be those who embrace their sexuality rather than frightened, dried-up old hags, and when that day comes perhaps “a woman’s right to choose” will become something more than merely a euphemism for abortion.

30 Responses

I’m not going to talk about whether abortion should be legal, illegal, legal in some cases but not others, or what those cases would be. You’re right, this isn’t the place for it, and besides it’s your blog. I would like to point out a strange correlation, though. Delete it if you think it shouldn’t be here.

Many who call themselves pro-life and are vehemently opposed to abortion are just as vehemently opposed to contraception, despite the fact that wide-spread contraceptive use is the most effective method of preventing abortion. After all, a woman who is not pregnant does not get an abortion. When somebody tells you that he or she is opposed to abortion, but that person also opposes contraception, there is more going on than concerns about the life of the unborn.

Roe vs. Wade says that a woman’s right to control her own body trumps all arguments pro or con. We agree that this must include the right to have sex with other consenting adults for free, for money, for barter, for favors, because she lost or won a bet. I don’t see how it could be any other way and still be logically consistent.

This sort of comment is fine, Sailor; I just don’t want finger-pointing and the usual asinine ad hominems (“You’re a Nazi!” “You’re a baby-killer!”) or manifestos on why one extreme and irrational position is better than another, equally extreme and irrational position. No other country in the free world has “debated” this issue for forty years without any progress whatsoever, because most other countries understand principles like “compromise” and “logic”.

Roe vs. Wade says that a woman’s right to control her own body trumps all arguments pro or con. We agree that this must include the right to have sex with other consenting adults for free, for money, for barter, for favors, because she lost or won a bet. I don’t see how it could be any other way and still be logically consistent.

It can’t be, yet politicians and neofeminists alike pretend it is.

Many who call themselves pro-life and are vehemently opposed to abortion are just as vehemently opposed to contraception, despite the fact that wide-spread contraceptive use is the most effective method of preventing abortion.

Another telling point is that most anti-abortion fanatics scream “All life is sacred!” yet support capital punishment, and many if not most opponents of capital punishment scream “Officially-sanctioned murder is still murder!” yet support abortion rights. Adopting prepackaged moral positions from political groups is easy, but often leads to glaring logical inconsistencies (especially when absolute words like “all” are involved). 😦

I know you weren’t only talking about 1 issue, but I feel a rant coming on. even the thought of abortion makes me sick and I want to throw up just thinking about it.

but unless it involves me or one of my family members, it is really none of my god damn business!

there are times when it is medically necessary, and even want it is not there maybe legitimate reasons for it. the problem is what is deemed legitimate for 1 person may not be the same for someone else.

abortion is such a deeply personal issue that the government should not be involved, except maybe in extreme cases. even then I’m not too sure.

bottom line as long as something does not personally hurt me or member of my family, or could hurt us if we were exposed to it, then I shouldn’t give a flying f if someone else does

If ever I am forced to fly again (and I’ve managed to avoid it for most of a decade because I deeply despised it even before they decided it was OK to harass me in the name of “security”) I intend to wear a spandex dress which can be dropped in one quick motion with absolutely nothing underneath it. If they still want to “search” me, I’m going to drop it right there in front of everyone and say “go ahead, search.” It’ll be interesting to see what they try to charge me with: “No, only we can see you naked, not anybody else!”

Security experts from El Al and other organizations have pointed out that the full body scanners and feel-ups are not particularly effective, especially since it can’t be done with every passenger. However, dogs would be able to detect explosive that the scanners and gropers miss, and the dogs would be sniffing the entire terminal.

Certain claims made, such as “it is impossible for any images to be retained or transmitted with these machines,” are simply not true. Retention and transmission of images is in fact an important part of training people to use the system.

Your post is courageous in calling a spade a spade, even though that is the height of political incorrectness today. If I may add something, feminists have exploited the problem of child sex abuse too, as documented in the book “The Politics of Child Sexual Abuse: Emotion, Social Movements, and the State” by Nancy Whittier (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2009). That book mysteriously disappeared from Amazon.com after I reviewed it, but my review is also at: http://www.books4parents.org/child.htm Thanks for your great blog!

so if it’s your choice why someone else is demanded to pay for your choice for the next 20 years?
Also I don’t see how that is applied to men drafted to go to war, if it is their body their choices why can they not refuse on the base of harm they can receive and as result of going to war what benefit do they obtain?

You apparently have a chip on your shoulder, and you’re barking up the wrong tree. Where does it say in this essay that “someone else” should pay for a woman’s decision to have a child? If you had done a little research before shooting off your mouth, you’d have known my position is exactly the opposite. Furthermore, it’s a bit bizarre for you to use the draft as some sort of counterargument when A) there is no military draft in the US, and B) I have repeatedly stated that individuals own themselves and no government, “society” or anyone else has the right to any counterclaim on an individual’s person or property. Here’s an excellent video which I did not create, but explains my feelings on the matter quite well.

In the future, you should probably restrict your attempts at trolling to people who actually believe the position you’re trying to argue against. Begone, and enjoy whatever MRA board you crawled out of.

I’ll try to give you a short version. Sonia is from Argentina and was sexually exploited for six years. She wrote a book named “No woman is born to be a whore” (Spanish: Ninguna mujer nace para puta.)
Among her arguments, she claims that :
*she doesn’t sell anything as a whore, for she owns noting.
*She claims that men who go whoring use violence as a way of having sex. *That women who are whores are incapable of showing love (because they have to emotionally numb themselves).
*Women who are exploted like her don’t know their own bodies, the Jonns kow them better.
*That brothels in Argentina, while illegal, are allowed to operate and that the women in brothels must pay for the health card to work.
*She also mentions that young men today must be educated to avoid becoming tomorros prostituters.

My question is: Do you think if prostitution was decriminalized and sex workers had a union, cases like hers would be avoided?

My answer to women like Sonia is here. I think they’re among our worse enemies, because they refuse to get that just because they didn’t like harlotry, doesn’t mean everyone else doesn’t. To do so would be to admit they lack something other women have, and they refuse to admit that so we must all feel exactly as they do and be lying about it or deluded.

Whorish Media

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".